Detection and proportion of very early dental caries in independent living older adults

Estimation of Oral Disease Burden among Older Adults in LTC: A Scoping Review

Oral health is an essential part of healthy aging and very little data exists around the disease burden for older adults in a long-term care setting. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the disease burden of dental caries, periodontal disease, and tooth loss among older adults in Long-Term Care (LTC). This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A detailed strategy was used to conduct a comprehensive search of electronic databases: PubMed, Embase, and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source (DOSS). The Rayyan AI platform was used to screen abstracts for assessment by one of five co-investigators. Results indicate that only one in three might have a functional dentition upon entry into LTC, and among those who are dentate, most might expect to develop at least one new coronal and one new root caries lesion each year. There is a need to better document the disease experiences of this group to tailor approaches to care that might reduce the avoidable suffering as a result of dental caries and periodontal disease.

Detection Methods for Early Caries Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The aim was to appraise the evidence on the performance of various means for the detection of incipient caries in vivo. Five databases of published and unpublished research were searched for studies from January 2000 to October 2019. Search terms included "early caries" and "caries detection." Inclusion criteria involved diagnostic test accuracy studies for early caries detection in permanent and primary teeth. A risk-of-bias assessment was performed using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed the study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment in duplicate. The review protocol was a priori registered in the Open Science Framework. Of the initially 22,964 search results, 51 articles were included. For permanent teeth, when histologic examination was considered as the reference for occlusal surfaces, the sensitivity (Se) range appeared high for the DIAGNOdent Pen (DD Pen) at 0.81-0.89, followed by ICDAS-II at 0.62-1, DIAGNOdent (DD) at 0.48-1, and bitewing radiography (BW) at 0-0.29. The corresponding specificity (Sp) range was: DD Pen 0.71-0.8, ICDAS-II 0.5-0.84, DD 0.54-1, and BW 0.96-1. When operative intervention served as the reference for occlusal surfaces, again, the DD means valued the most promising results on Se: DD 0.7-0.96 and DD Pen 0.55-0.90, followed by ICDAS-II 0.25-0.93, and BW 0-0.83. The Sp range was: DD 0.54-1, DD Pen 0.71-1, ICDAS-II 0.44-1, and BW 0.6-1. For approximal surfaces, the Se was: BW 0.75-0.83, DD Pen 0.6, and ICDAS-II 0.54; the Sp was: BW 0.6-0.9, DD Pen 0.2, and ICDAS-II 1. For primary teeth, under the reference of histologic assessment, the Se range for occlusal surfaces was: DD 0.55-1, DD Pen 0.63-1, ICDAS-II 0.42-1, and BW 0.31-0.96; the respective Sp was: DD 0.5-1, DD Pen 0.44-1, ICDAS-II 0.61-1, and BW 0.79-0.98. For approximal surfaces, the Se range was: DD Pen 0.58-0.63, ICDAS-II 0.42-0.55, and BW 0.14-0.71. The corresponding Sp range was: DD Pen 0.85-0.87, ICDAS-II 0.73-0.93, and BW 0.79-0.98. Se and Sp values varied, due to the heterogeneity regarding the setting of individual studies. Evidently, robust conclusions cannot be drawn, and different diagnostic means should be used as adjuncts to clinical examination. In permanent teeth, visual examination may be enhanced by DD on occlusal surfaces and BW on approximal surfaces. In primary teeth, DD Pen may serve as a supplementary tool across all surfaces.

Transillumination and optical coherence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries

BACKGROUND

Caries is one of the most prevalent and preventable conditions worldwide. If identified early enough then non-invasive techniques can be applied, and therefore this review focusses on early caries involving the enamel surface of the tooth. The cornerstone of caries detection and diagnosis is a visual and tactile dental examination, although alternative approaches are available. These include illumination-based devices that could potentially support the dental examination. There are three categories of illumination devices that exploit various methods of application and interpretation, each primarily defined by different wavelengths, optical coherence tomography (OCT), near-infrared (NIR), and fibre-optic technology, which incorporates more recently developed digital fibre optics (FOTI/DIFOTI).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the diagnostic test accuracy of different illumination tests for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries in children or adults. We also planned to explore the following potential sources of heterogeneity: in vitro or in vivo studies with different reference standards; tooth surface (occlusal, proximal, smooth surface, or adjacent to a restoration); single or multiple sites of assessment on a tooth surface; and the prevalence of caries into dentine.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist undertook a search of the following databases: MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2019); Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2019); US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov, to 15 February 2019); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 15 February 2019). We studied reference lists as well as published systematic review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy study designs that compared the use of illumination-based devices with a reference standard (histology, enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs, or operative excavation). These included prospective studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of a single index test and studies that directly compared two or more index tests. Both in vitro and in vivo studies of primary and permanent teeth were eligible for inclusion. We excluded studies that explicitly recruited participants with caries into dentine or frank cavitation. We also excluded studies that artificially created carious lesions and those that used an index test during the excavation of dental caries to ascertain the optimum depth of excavation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate using a standardised data extraction form and quality assessment based on QUADAS-2 specific to the clinical context. Estimates of diagnostic accuracy were determined using the bivariate hierarchical method to produce summary points of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence regions. The comparative accuracy of different illumination devices was conducted based on indirect and direct comparisons between methods. Potential sources of heterogeneity were pre-specified and explored visually and more formally through meta-regression.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 24 datasets from 23 studies that evaluated 16,702 tooth surfaces. NIR was evaluated in 6 datasets (673 tooth surfaces), OCT in 10 datasets (1171 tooth surfaces), and FOTI/DIFOTI in 8 datasets (14,858 tooth surfaces). The participant selection domain had the largest number of studies judged at high risk of bias (16 studies). Conversely, for the index test, reference standard, and flow and timing domains the majority of studies were judged to be at low risk of bias (16, 12, and 16 studies respectively). Concerns regarding the applicability of the evidence were judged as high or unclear for all domains. Notably, 14 studies were judged to be of high concern for participant selection, due to selective participant recruitment, a lack of independent examiners, and the use of an in vitro study design. The summary estimate across all the included illumination devices was sensitivity 0.75 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.85) and specificity 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.92), with a diagnostic odds ratio of 21.52 (95% CI 10.89 to 42.48). In a cohort of 1000 tooth surfaces with a prevalence of enamel caries of 57%, this would result in 142 tooth surfaces being classified as disease free when enamel caries was truly present (false negatives), and 56 tooth surfaces being classified as diseased in the absence of enamel caries (false positives). A formal comparison of the accuracy according to device type indicated a difference in sensitivity and/or specificity (Chi2(4) = 34.17, P < 0.01). Further analysis indicated a difference in the sensitivity of the different devices (Chi2(2) = 31.24, P < 0.01) with a higher sensitivity of 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) for OCT compared to NIR 0.58 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.68) and FOTI/DIFOTI 0.47 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.59), but no meaningful difference in specificity (Chi2(2) = 3.47, P = 0.18). In light of these results, we planned to formally assess potential sources of heterogeneity according to device type, but due to the limited number of studies for each device type we were unable to do so. For interpretation, we presented the coupled forest plots for each device type according to the potential source of heterogeneity. We rated the certainty of the evidence as low and downgraded two levels in total due to avoidable and unavoidable study limitations in the design and conduct of studies, indirectness arising from the in vitro studies, and imprecision of the estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the devices evaluated, OCT appears to show the most potential, with superior sensitivity to NIR and fibre-optic devices. Its benefit lies as an add-on tool to support the conventional oral examination to confirm borderline cases in cases of clinical uncertainty. OCT is not currently available to the general dental practitioner, and so further research and development are necessary. FOTI and NIR are more readily available and easy to use; however, they show limitations in their ability to detect enamel caries but may be considered successful in the identification of sound teeth. Future studies should strive to avoid research waste by ensuring that recruitment is conducted in such a way as to minimise selection bias and that studies are clearly and comprehensively reported. In terms of applicability, any future studies should be undertaken in a clinical setting that is reflective of the complexities encountered in caries assessment within the oral cavity.

Optical coherence tomography to evaluate variance in the extent of carious lesions in depth

Evaluation of variance in the extent of carious lesions in depth at smooth surfaces within the same ICDAS code group using optical coherence tomography (OCT) in vitro and in vivo. (1) Verification/validation of OCT to assess non-cavitated caries: 13 human molars with ICDAS code 2 at smooth surfaces were imaged using OCT and light microscopy. Regions of interest (ROI) were categorized according to the depth of carious lesions. Agreement between histology and OCT was determined by unweighted Cohen's Kappa and Wilcoxon test. (2) Assessment of 133 smooth surfaces using ICDAS and OCT in vitro, 49 surfaces in vivo. ROI were categorized according to the caries extent (ICDAS: codes 0-4, OCT: scoring based on lesion depth). A frequency distribution of the OCT scores for each ICDAS code was determined. (1) Histology and OCT agreed moderately (κ = 0.54, p ≤ 0.001) with no significant difference between both methods (p = 0.25). The lesions (76.9% (10 of 13)) _were equally scored. (2) In vitro, OCT revealed caries in 42% of ROI clinically assessed as sound. OCT detected dentin-caries in 40% of ROIs visually assessed as enamel-caries. In vivo, large differences between ICDAS and OCT were observed. Carious lesions of ICDAS codes 1 and 2 vary largely in their extent in depth.

Comparison of caries diagnostic modalities: A clinical study in 40 subjects

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Few studies have been published that evaluate the usefulness of different caries- diagnostic modalities in general dental practice. The goal of this study was to compare the results of screening for coronal dental caries in a general dental practice using clinical observations, radiographs, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent™) (LF), and optical coherence tomography (OCT). Diagnostic agreement between OCT and LF versus standard clinical techniques for detecting caries was determined in 40 subjects.

STUDY DESIGNS/MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients with >1 coronal carious lesion as determined by prescreening using clinical examination and radiographs were enrolled in this study. Subjects with gross caries were excluded. Subsequently each patient underwent a full detailed dental examination by an experienced clinician, using visual examination and radiographs according to standard clinical practice. The coronal surfaces of a total of 932 teeth were examined and charted. Teeth were then photographed, rediagnosed using the LF system, and imaged using OCT. Two blinded pre-standardized examiners reviewed radiographic and OCT images and assigned caries status.

RESULTS

Based on manufacturer's cutoff values, sensitivity and specificity for coronal caries using LF technique (i) on unaltered tooth surfaces were 73.7% and 94.1%, respectively and (ii) in previously restored or sealed teeth, they were 19.2% and 95.8%, respectively. LF technique was unable to assess tissue health underneath sealants and restorations. Clinician agreement (kappa [k]) regarding caries diagnosis using OCT imaging was overall 0.834 (SE = 0.034). Sensitivity and specificity for caries using OCT technique (i) on unaltered tooth surfaces approximated 74.1% and 95.7%, respectively and, (ii) in previously restored or sealed teeth, they approximated 76.0% and 95.6%, respectively. Although OCT was able to detect lesions beneath many resin restorations and sealants, results varied considerably between materials. OCT imaging was unable to detect caries when caries was >2 mm below the tooth surface.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the usefulness of LF for primary caries detection, and the clinical utility of OCT for early caries detection and monitoring under dental resin restorations and sealants. Lasers Surg. Med. 48:924-928, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.